Ople v.

Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)

Facts:
Senator Blas Ople prayed to invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System" on the following important constitutional grounds:
a.) it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate;
b.) it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.
He also contended that the appropriation of public funds by the president for the implementation of AO
308 is an unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive right of congress to appropriate public funds for
expenditure.
AO 308 aims to establish a computerized system to properly and efficiently identify persons seeking
basic services on social security and reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
misrepresentations.
Then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who as members
of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, the respondents have the following counter arguments:
a.) The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review
b.) AO 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the president without
encroaching on the legislative powers of congress. They also contend that A.O. No. 308
implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987.
c.) The funds necessary for the implementation of the ID reference system may be sourced from
the budgets of the concerned agencies
d.) AO 308 protects an individuals interest in privacy
Issues:
a.) Whether or not Senator Ople has the standing to sue and the justiciability of the case at bar.
b.) Whether or not AO 308 is not merely an administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the
power of the President to issue (encroachment of legislative power)
c.) Whether or not AO 308 violates the right to privacy.
Held:
a.) Petitioner Ople as a Senator has legal standing to bring suit raising the issue that the
issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the
misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.
The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the
implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O.
No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules
yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves
have started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules
b.) An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific
aspects in the administrative operation of government.
The respondents argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the
Administrative Code of 1987 was rejected by the SC because the Administrative Code is a
general law which "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and
procedural principles of governance" and "embodies changes in administrative structures and
procedures designed to serve the people." AO 308 establishes for the first time a National
Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment
of various contending state policies-- the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy
interest against dossier-gathering by government, the choice of policies, etc.
They also argue that A.O. No. 308 is not a law because it confers no right, imposes no duty,
affords no protection, and creates no office. However, without the ID, a citizen will have
difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the contention that
A.O. No. 308 gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand.

c.) AO 308 is a violation to the right to privacy. The essence of privacy is the "right to be let
alone." The right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our
Constitution. It is expressly recognized in several provisions of the Bill of Rights, Civil Code
and even the Revised Penal Code.
The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the
burden of government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest
and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations: (1) the need
to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with
basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities and (2) the
need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by
persons seeking basic services.
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4 which provides for a Population Reference
Number (PRN) as a "common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned
agencies" through the use of "Biometrics Technology" and "computer application designs." It
is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does not state what specific biological characteristics and
what particular biometrics technology shall be used to identify people who will seek its
coverage. Considering the banquet of options available to the implementors of A.O. No. 308,
the fear that it threatens the right to privacy of our people is not groundless.
It also does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological information alone for
identification purposes. The SG claims that the adoption of the Identification Reference
System will contribute to the "generation of population data for development planning." This is
an admission that the PRN will not be used solely for identification but for the generation of
other data with remote relation to the avowed purposes of A.O. No. 308. Clearly, the
indefiniteness of A.O. No. 308 can give the government the roving authority to store and
retrieve information for a purpose other than the identification of the individual through his
PRN.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System" declared null and void for being
unconstitutional.